predictability of extratropical cyclones · – storms lothar and martin of 1999 (pearce et al....
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones(in the North Atlantic/European Regions)
Lizzie FroudeEnvironmental Systems Science Centre
University of Reading
With thanks to Kevin Hodges, Robert Gurney and Lennart Bengtsson
email: [email protected] homepage: www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~lsrf
![Page 2: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline
• Motivation: Importance of predicting extratropical cyclones
• Review of previous cyclone predictability studies• Storm tracking methodology for assessing cyclone
prediction/predictability• Comparison of ensemble prediction systems (EPS) from
TIGGE• Regional analysis of ECMWF EPS• Future Work• Conclusions
2
![Page 3: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Importance of Predicting Extratropical Cyclones
• Important for day-to-day weather in the midlatitudes• Stormy, wet and windy weather• Beneficial: Provide essential rainfall• Damaging: Floods and strong winds• Examples:
– Great October Storm (1987) hit southern England and north-west France. Caused severe damage and 18 people died. Badly predicted.
– Storms Lothar and Martin (December 1999) hit Europe (1 day apart). Large economic loss in France, Germany and Switzerland and more than 80 deaths. High speed of storms associated with unusually strong westerly winds.
![Page 4: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Individual Cyclone Predictability Studies
• Numerous studies of individual extratropical cyclones– Motivated by severity or deficiencies in the forecasts– Great October Storm of 1987 (Morris and Gadd 1988)– Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001)
• Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to study prediction of past severe cyclones– Jung et al. (2004): ECMWF model, reforecast 3 major European
storms of 20th century including Oct 1987 storm– Track and intensity well predicted, but timing difficult– Jung et al. (2005): continued by exploring prediction of the
storms by ECMWF ensemble prediction system (EPS)– EPS able to predict large forecast uncertainty in the timing of Oct
1987 storm 4 days in advance
![Page 5: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Impact Studies of Individual Cyclone Prediction• Studies of the impact some “controllable factor” has on
cyclone prediction• Types of Observations:
– Kuo et al. (1997): GPS refractivity data, extreme cyclone in North West Atlantic in 1989
– Xiao et al. (2002): satellite derived winds, mid-Pacific cyclone from 1998
– Penn State/NCAR mesoscale model (MM5)– Improvements in cyclone position and intensity– Pouponneau et al. (1999): upper level wind aircraft data,
Atlantic cyclone in 1994 using Meteo-France forecast system. – Automated cyclone tracking system (Baehr et al. 1999) to track
relative vorticity maxima– Suggest use of automated tracking algorithm to measure
forecast skill
![Page 6: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Impact Studies of Individual Cyclone Prediction• Targeted Observations:
– Leutbecher et al. (2002): French storms of 1999 and storm that hit Denmark also 1999
– ECMWF forecast system– Overall observations improved cyclone prediction
• Initial State:– Zou et al. (1998): Cyclogenesis of Atlantic storm 1989, MM5
model– Apply optimal perturbations to initial conditions – Indication of severe cyclone earlier in forecast cycle– Langland et al. (2002): U.S. east coast cyclone 2000, U.S. Navy
global forecast model– Optimal perturbations improved prediction of cyclone position– Often ensembles used to study initial state: e.g. Sanders et al.
(2000), Hacker et al. (2003)– Cyclone simulations: Zhu and Thorpe (2006)
![Page 7: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Need Statistical Analysis!
• Lots of studies of individual cyclones, but need statistical analysis
• Statistical studies less numerous – large computational requirements
• First statistical study Leary (1971):– Sample of 417 storms from Nov 1969 - Feb 1970– NMC (now NCEP) model– Manually identified and tracked cyclones from analysis and
forecast pressure maps– Systems with at least one closed isobar– Cyclones over ocean underpredicted intensity– Cyclones in lee of the Rockies were too deep– Forecast tracks generally lie to the right of analysis tracks– Silberberg and Bosart (1982) got similar results
![Page 8: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Statistical Studies of Cyclone Predictability
• Semiautomated studies– Don’t have to manually enter data from surface pressure maps
into computer– Grum and Siebers (1989) and Grum et al. (1992)– NMC nested grid model (NGM)– Cyclone intensity overpredicted over land and underpredicted
over ocean– Move too slowly and cold bias
• Model comparison– Sanders (1992) compared NMC, ECMWF and UK Met Office
models over central and western North Atlantic– NMC had highest performance – Verified against NMC analyses – bias?– Different observations available to different weather centres
![Page 9: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Statistical Studies of Cyclone Predictability
• European studies:– Girard and Jarraud (1982) and Akyildiz (1985)– Compared ECMWF grid point model (then operational) and a
spectral model– Propagation speed too slow in grid point model– Also too slow for fast moving cyclones in spectral model– Growth and decay rates too small in grid point model – More realistic in spectral model
![Page 10: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Limitations and Requirements
• Past studies limited by time consuming task of manually identifying and tracking features
• Statistical studies are15 years or more old
• Need statistical analysis of prediction of extratropical cyclones by current NWP
• Need to use fully automated method of cyclone identification and tracking
![Page 11: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
TRACK• Storm Identification and tracking
software (Hodges 1995)• Identifies feature points (low pressure
centres or vorticity max and min) through a time series of data.
• Filter – remove background (n≤5), T42 resolution
• Normally use 850-hPa relative vorticity (ξ850)
• Links points together to form trajectories of storms path (storm tracks)
• Minimise cost function to form smooth tracks
• Tracks filtered:– Last at least 2 days– Travel further than 1000 km
![Page 12: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Applications of TRACK
• Climatological studies– Track density– Genesis– Lysis
• Compare re-analyses, differences in storm track– Spatial differences– Intensity differences
• Climate change studies– Differences in storm tracks
with different warming scenarios
From Hoskins and Hodges (2002)
ERA15 DJFTrack Density
Genesis density
![Page 13: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Forecast Verification
• Use TRACK as a tool for forecast verification and to explore the predictability of extratropical cyclones
• Forecast Skill often measured using RMS error of fields such as 500-hPa geopotential height
• Alternative Storm Tracking method:– Identify and track cyclones along the forecast trajectories– generate statistics to quantify how individual forecast storms
diverge from analysed storms with forecast time– Provides detailed information about prediction of cyclones– Since storms fundamental to weather in midlatitudes, provides
good measure of ability of NWP to predict weather
![Page 14: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Storm Tracking Analysis Methodology
• Cyclones identified and tracked along forecast trajectories (green) using 850 hPa vorticity field
• Tracking also performed with corresponding analyses (blue)
• Forecast storm tracks validated against analysis storm tracks using a matching methodology
• Error statistics are generated for various properties of cyclones, e.g. position, intensity, propagation speed
![Page 15: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Statistics: Matching Methodology
• A forecast track matches an analysis track if – T% of their points overlap in time
(temporal constraint)– The first 4 points of the forecast track,
which coincide with in time with the analysis track, must have a separation distance S of less than D° from the corresponding points in the analysis track (spatial constraint)
• 3 levels of matching:1. T = 60% and D = 2°2. T = 60% and D = 4°3. T = 30% and D = 4°
• Additional constraint – only those forecast tracks whose genesis occurs in the first 3 days of the forecast are considered
![Page 16: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Ensemble Prediction
• Atmosphere chaotic: small errors in initial conditions grow rapidly during forecast
• Multiple forecasts are integrated from slightly different initial conditions
• Initial conditions obtained by applying perturbations to the analysis (truth)
• Control forecast started from unperturbed analysis, at same resolution as other ensemble members
• Sometimes perturbations also applied to forecast model• Benefits of Ensemble Prediction:
– Probabilistic forecast– Early warning of extreme events– Mean Forecast superior to control forecast
![Page 17: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
TIGGE Dataset
• THORPEX Interactive Grand Global Ensemble (TIGGE)• Archive of EPS data from 10 different operational
weather centres around the world– UKMO (UK), ECMWF (Europe), NCEP (USA), JMA (Japan),
KMA (Korea), BoM (Australia), MF (France), CPTEC (Brazil), CMC (Canada), CMA (China)
• Each EPS different– Different perturbation methods, models, no. of members, model
perturbations, resolution, data assimilation
• Analyse the prediction of storms by different EPS• Data period: 1 Feb 2008 – 31 Jul 2008• Tracking performed along each ensemble member and
control forecast of each EPS• Verify against ECMWF analyses
![Page 18: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
ECMWF Example Storm
Forecast started 1200 UTC 4 Feb 2008
![Page 19: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
TIGGE: Ensemble Mean
Forecast started 1200 UTC 4 Feb 2008
![Page 20: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Ensemble Mean Error (northern hemisphere)
![Page 21: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Ensemble Mean Error (southern hemisphere)
![Page 22: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Intensity and Propagation Speed Bias
![Page 23: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Position Diagnostics
![Page 24: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Intensity Diagnostics
![Page 25: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Summary: TIGGE Results• Large differences between different EPS in skill of
predicting storms• ECMWF has highest skill for ensemble mean and control • Ensemble mean provides little advantage over control for
position, but does for intensity • ECMWF and JMA have excellent spread-skill
relationship for position• EPS are much more underdispersive for intensity and
speed• Storms propagate too slowly in all models• UKMO, NCEP, BoM and CPTEC underpredict storm
intensity, other EPS have smaller bias• CMA large errors in SH
25
![Page 26: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Regional Differences in ECMWF EPS
• 1 year of data: 6th Jan 2005 – 5th Jan 2006• Larger data sample allowed storm-track analysis to
be broken down into smaller regions• Northern Hemisphere (Above 20N):
– Atlantic = (280º,0º)– Pacific = (120º,240º)– Eurasia = (0º,120º)– North America = (240º,280º)
• Southern Hemisphere (Below 20S):– Atlantic = (300º,0 º)– Pacific = (150º,290º)– Indian = (20º, 120º)
![Page 27: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Position Error Intensity Error
Northern Hemisphere
Southern Hemisphere
Ensemble Skill and Spread
Solid = ensemble mean error, Dashed = ensemble spread
![Page 28: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Northern Hemisphere
Intensity and Propagation Speed Bias
Solid = perturbed members, Dashed = control
Intensity Bias Speed Bias
Southern Hemisphere
![Page 29: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
NH Mean Intensity Error
Day 0 Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
REMOVE TROPICALCYCLONES
![Page 30: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Storm Example (July 2005)
Black = truth, Red = control, Blue = ensemble members, Green = mean
![Page 31: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
NH Intensity Spread
Day 0 Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
![Page 32: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
SH Mean Intensity Error
Day 0 Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
![Page 33: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
SH Intensity Spread
Day 0 Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
![Page 34: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Summary: Regional Results (ECMWF EPS)
• Error in position is larger over the Atlantic in NH, larger in SH but comparable between regions
• Error in intensity is larger over the ocean than over land• Spread in position is slightly less than mean error from
day 3 for all regions in NH, but comparable in SH• Spread in intensity is less than mean error for all regions,
larger difference for NH Pacific and Eurasia• In general storms are overpredicted over the ocean and
underpredicted over the land• Forecast storms move too slowly; larger bias over the
Atlantic in the NH
34
![Page 35: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
What Next?• New project working with company BMT ARGOSS
(http://www.argoss.nl/)• Develop forecast tools providing storm prediction/
uncertainty information from NCEP EPS for decision making at sea
• Explore the causes of error in storm prediction/ predictability
• Storm composites, vertical structure, tilts, lifecycles –further understanding of errors in relation to storm dynamics
• Forecast experiments to access impacts of resolution, perturbation methods, no. of ensemble members etc.
![Page 36: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
ERA40 Storm Composites
• 100 most intense storms in T42 ξ850at different stages of lifecycle
• NH, DJF• Top = max growth rate• Middle = max precipitation• Bottom = max T42 ξ850
• Left = mean wind speed (colour, m/s)• Right = mean precipitation (colour,
mm/h)• Black contours = mean MSLP (hPa)• White dashed contours =
temperature between 850 and 500 hPa
![Page 37: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
ERA40 Storm Vertical Tilt Life Cycle Composites
37
• Vertical tilt of 100 most intense storms at different stages of lifecycle
• Time steps 6hr apart• Time step 0 = maximum T42 ξ850
intensity• Tilts are angle from 850-hPa
centre
• Interesting to look at structure and tilt of cyclones predicted by different EPS
• Different perturbation methods and cyclone structure• Overprediction and underprediction, differences in structure…
![Page 38: Predictability of Extratropical Cyclones · – Storms Lothar and Martin of 1999 (Pearce et al. 2001) • Not limited to operational forecasts of the time, current models used to](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022071011/5fc8fef9b0ee0a3d7341a40d/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Final Remarks
• Storm tracking methodology provides detailed information about prediction of cyclones by NWP
• Alternative method of forecast verification– Advantage: provides detailed information about prediction of
storms – good measure of how the weather is predicted– Disadvantage: Time consuming, requires large amounts of data
• Useful to both forecasters/users and model developers
email: [email protected] homepage: www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~lsrf